REPORT FROM THE TASK FORCE ON IMPROVING THE NON RESIDENT COLLABORATION ENVIRONMENT

 
           Richard Dubois (SLAC)
           Ray Frey (Oregon)
           Tony Johnson (SLAC)
           Mohan Kalelkar (Rutgers)
           Steve Manly (Yale)
           Ida Peruzzi (Frascati)
           Shiro Suzuki (Nagoya)
           Bob Wilson (Colorado State) -- Chair

Our first task was to determine just what the problems were. Members of the task force polled colleagues at their institutions and held many discussions with a wide variety of SLD collaborators. From this exercise we generated a list which summarized the major points for discussion. One thing became clear quickly, lack of information was a contributing factor to much of the dissatisfaction. Quite often ignorance of existing information and resources was at the root of the disgruntlement. Another major effect of poor communication is the difficulty to maintain the sense of community which is so important for effective collaboration. Although communication among non-resident collaborators will never be as easy as for those at SLAC, it is evident that the situation can be improved with relatively little additional effort.

In this report we will present a list of suggestions for changes which, in sum, we believe will substantially improve the ability of non resident collaborators to contribute effectively to SLD operation and analysis. Many of them we expect to be of short term utility, essentially they are there to break the logjam which has built up of the past few years. Some may be viewed as "obvious", barely worth writing down. However, the task force felt that in some cases it was important to emphasize some motherhood and apple-pie principles. The list represents a distillation of many discussions and suggestions the task force has received during the past few months. It is not intended to be all encompassing. Undoubtedly, there are things we have missed and new issues will arise. The first recommendation of the task force is that a standing committee be established to monitor the implementation of these recommendations and to act as a point of contact for issues as they arise.

We have divided the report into three main sections. Section I contains the task force recommendations to the SLD spokesmen and the SLAC-based collaborators, particularly those who form the core of the software and analysis groups. Many suggestions for improvements were implemented during the course of the task force investigations. To document some of this activity we have included a section to chronicle important recommendations which have already been acted upon. In Section III we have catalogued a set of actions that a non resident group should take if they wish to make an effective contribution to SLD analysis. Data from a questionnaire sent to all institutional representatives provided valuable feedback to these recommendations. A copy of the questionnaire and a summary of the replies is given in Appendix I.

Section I: Recommendations to SLD Spokesmen and SLAC-Based Collaborators

Computing and Data Access

1. All collaborators should be strongly encouraged to migrate away from using the IBM/VM system as soon as possible.

   Discussion

   Many collaborators still actively use the VM system, however, SLAC has essentially stopped support for that system and the SLD software group no longer has the manpower to support SLD software on that platform. For the near term (1-2 years), the DEC/VMS operating system will the only system fully supported for SLD analysis. The conversion of SLD software to unix is not likely to provide a broadly supported analysis platform for SLD for 1-2 years. Nonetheless, several groups are now using unix machines effectively by generating specialized datasets in n-tuple format which are then analyzed with tools such as PAW.

   A netnews group: slac.discuss.vmphaseout has been established to discuss issues related to the VM phaseout. A proposal has been prepared by a SLAC committee which addresses many of the issues related to VM phase-out. It includes a schedule which effectively terminates the use by SLD (and others) collaborators by September, 1995. The document is available on WWW.

2. A non resident "SLD Computing Liaison" should be established to act as a central point of contact for non resident collaborators. This person should be familiar with SLD documentation and be able to answer "typical" questions. The liaison would participate, by phone conference if necessary, in the weekly software group meetings.

   Discussion

   Currently, non resident collaborators face long, frustrating delays when trying to get answers to questions about SLD software. One reason for this is the difficulty to locate (or even knowing the existence of) the appropriate documentation. Another reason is that a few experts at SLAC (e.g. Richard and Tony) receive so many e-mail requests for help that it is inevitable that individual replies will not be addressed quickly. On-site people can reinforce a request by a personal appearance in the appropriate doorway, not an easy option for the non resident.
3. Support for the transfer of SLD datasets to collaborating institutions should be increased. A part-time data aide should be hired to perform routine copying of datasets for distribution to offsite institutions.

   Discussion

   Several groups now have substantial VMS computing power. A key factor to utilize it efficiently is access to SLD datasets. It should be investigated whether off site institutions could help to support this position.
4. The collaboration spokesmen should solicit statements of computing needs of collaborating groups. These should be assembled into a coherent statement of the computing needs for the experiment as a whole.

   Discussion

   This document should be communicated to the appropriate funding agencies which may use it as a basis to consider the funding requests of individual institutions. This follows the model used for the construction of several HEP experiments.
5. The SLD software group should be allocated a separate budget to address issues of offsite support.

   Discussion

   This will avoid some conflicts faced by the group in the current scheme. A recent example of such a conflict is the choice between the purchase of more hard disk for local systems or a tape stacker for use mostly by non resident collaborators.
6. The SLD software group should maintain a list of pending projects which currently do not have an assigned executor, e.g. DUCSNEWS for the Alphas.

   Discussion

   This would enable collaborators to see what are the high priority needs for SLD and to offer their services. Many projects would lend themselves to offsite attention quite readily.
7. The SLD physics working groups should maintain a list of tasks which currently do not have an assigned executor, e.g. run a monte carlo to determine the backgrounds to a process under study.

   Discussion

   It is often difficult for people wishing to get involved in an analysis to determine where they can quickly make a contribution. A collaborator at SLAC might begin attending working group meetings, speak with people in the group and gradually become aware of the opportunities. It is more difficult for someone who cannot easily visit SLAC to gather sufficient momentum by this mechanism. It would be helpful if one could browse through the "to do" lists that most analysis groups generate. This way the remote collaborator could recognize a topic of interest and the right scope before contacting the busy working group leaders.
8. SLD should recommend to SLAC that SLUO be assigned a budget to support X terminal access for visitors.

   Discussion

   A windowing environment (typically using the X protocol) has become a standard for modern computer user access and much of SLD software is being developed in that direction (SLD WWW pages and MidasWWW). SCS plans to phase out support for ascii terminals such as the Ambassadors which are in common use by visitors. Providing replacements is an important service that the laboratory should provide for its users. SLD should strongly support the efforts of SLUO to improve this service.
9. Several institutions make use of the Micom switch for access to SLAC. A request should be made to SCS to publish guidelines for alternative modes of access.

   Discussion

   Access to SLAC computers for users with leased lines typically has been through the MICOM switch. SCS has announced plans to discontinue this service. These users need advice on the best ways to make use of these expensive, but important (see item III.6) leased lines.

B. Meetings

1. Televideo conferencing using the SLAC system should not be emphasized for the near term.

   Discussion

   Currently, few non resident collaborators have convenient access to a full-blown teleconference system. It is important that meetings which do use this technology are also accessible with a more basic phone conference link.
2. The monthly SLD collaboration meeting should be held with at least one way teleconferencing i.e. a remote collaborator should be able to listen-in on the meeting.

   Discussion

   A minimal system would consist of two good quality microphones attached to a phone, one located next to the chair of the meeting (usually the spokesmen) the other near the projector (not too near the fan!).
3. A speakerphone suitable for multi-way teleconference calls should be purchased.

   Discussion

   A system which could accommodate up to 15 people at SLAC would service most of the SLD meetings of interest to non resident collaborators (most notably the physics analysis groups). A review of meeting times indicates that one system will cover our needs, the Group C speakerphone would still be available as a backup.
4. A fax machine should be purchased for use in teleconference meetings. Off-site users should also have one with convenient access.

   Discussion

   An obvious drawback of audio-only conferences is not being able to see the transparencies. Faxing copies ahead of time is a partial solution but quite often tranparencies are made at the last minute, or are modified during the meeting. A fax machine immediately to hand would improve the chances for off site people to have uptodate copies. [Note: we have verified that one can fax directly from transparencies, but don't use green or yellow!]
5. The Orange room and at least one other room able to accommodate 10 to 15 people should be outfitted with TWO telephone lines. The Group A and C meeting rooms and CL G104 (TAS's office) are good candidates.

   Discussion

   The conference phone and fax may then be used simultaneously in these rooms. We presume that the Orange room will continue to be easily available for SLD meetings, in particular the monthly collaboration meeting.
6. When requested by a collaborator, an effort should be made to hold meetings in the SLAC videoconference room. These meetings should be advertised at least one week in advance.

   Discussion

   Few collaborators have exclusive use of these systems and some advanced booking is usually required (as it is at SLAC).
7. Alternative televideo systems by the end of the year. A committee should be formed to make a recommendation to collaborators for systems which would make best use of this technology (similar to the recommendations for computer systems given in the past). A SLAC resident SLD person should be designated to participate in these investigations.

   Discussion

   The MBONE system is now in fairly common use for meetings ranging from person-to-person, to full conference broadcast (such as the 1994 Computing in High Energy Physics conference). Several groups (including SLAC) are investigating the MBONE system, however there is not enough experience to recommend this route to SLD yet.
8. Determination of the dates for SLD weeks and full collaboration meetings should be done in consultation with the institutional representatives. An effort should be made to position them close to other important meetings at SLAC e.g. EPAC, DOE Review etc.

   Discussion

   Although it is clearly impossible to accommodate the busy schedules of all collaborators, it would be useful to solicit comments on a preliminary schedule before it is finalized.
9. All major meetings of the Physics Working Groups should be scheduled to occur during SLD weeks. A comprehensive calendar of meetings will be prepared to facilitate this (Now available!). Published meeting times should be changed only due to extraordinary circumstances. Schedule changes, particularly those during SLD week, should be announced as soon as possible (via DUCSNEWS, WWW, or e-mail).

   Discussion

   Non resident collaborators typically must plan travel dates at least one to two weeks in advance to take advantage of discount air fares. Quite often, due to teaching constraints, the trip will be for just a few days so a change of meeting schedule can effectively invalidate that trip.
10. Minutes of most SLD meetings should be posted electronically as soon as possible after the meeting, preferably within one week. The minutes of the physics working groups meetings would be particularly useful.

    Discussion

    This would also be of benefit to resident collaborators. A good example is the daily SLC status report which is a very effective way for all collaborators to keep in touch with the progress of the experiment.
11. A copy of transparencies of meetings should be given to the SLD secretary to keep a central file. In many cases this can be accomplished by simply adding the secretary to existing distribution lists.

    Discussion

    If we succeed to have minutes of meetings readily available (i.e. electronically) a collaborator can browse them easily and decide that the transparencies would be useful. A request could then be made for copies of them in the central file to be mailed or faxed. Storing all transparencies for electronic access would be more convenient for the requestor but we feel that the process would be too consuming of time and resources to be practical for SLD.

General Communication

1. An online list of collaborators should be kept which identifies their area of expertise (loosely defined) and willingness to answer questions with fairly rapid turnaround.

   Discussion

   A particular difficulty for non resident collaborators is lack of opportunity to just wander down the corridor to find the answer to nagging problems. The people on the list do not need to be part of the official software group nor do they need to be at SLAC. Indeed, part of the goal would be to lighten the burden on the traditional experts.
2. The current DUCSNEWs system should be enhanced by a NETNEWS-DUCSNEWS gateway, or possibly replaced by NETNEWS.

   Discussion

   NETNEWS feeds can be set up on local systems allowing more reliable and faster access. NETNEWS is widely supported on many systems. The SLD confer is no longer supported even on VM.
3. The use of SLD Conference/NETNEWS as a forum for discussions should be encouraged.

   Discussion

   Currently, the confer utility is used mostly for announcements. People who frequent some of the USENET groups have seen how effective they can be as a place for getting and giving advice [there is a lot of garbage too, the discipline of the users makes the difference].
4. The SLD electronic conferences list should be rationalized. Any conference which has not received a new entry for more than 6 months should be archived (in an easily accessible manner) and removed from the public list (such as that presented by the WWW page).

   Discussion

   This process could occur during the migration to NETNEWS mentioned above.
5. A list of SLD Notes and other internal documents should be made easily accessible by computer. The location of the documents, preferably in their electronic form, should be documented. Important documents, such as physics papers, should be available electronically in their entirety i.e including figures. An attempt should be made to provide at least the text in electronic form for SLD Notes etc.

   Discussion

   For people at SLAC these documents are usually just a few corridors away. Electronic access to them could save a great deal of time for those who cannot visit SLAC frequently.

Section II: Recommendations Completed or In-Progress

A. Computing and Data Access

1. Support for the transfer of SLD datasets to collaborating institutions should be increased. The data copying (to 8mm tapes) process should be simplified and made more robust.

   Discussion

   Two 8mm (2Gb/tape) drives have been moved to the Central Lab for easier access. The procedure for tape copying has been simplified. Instructions are posted on WWW.
2. SLD should provide some X terminal and workstation access for non resident collaborators.

   Discussion

   The four VAX4000 will be re-located to the area currently occupied by the color printer.
3. Karen Heidenreich should be given discretion to install a "small" number of archived tapes back into the silo upon request by a collaborator

   Discussion

   Chain-of-command request delays will be eliminated.

Meetings

1. The schedule of all SLD meetings should be posted to DUCSNEWS and WWW.

   Discussion

   In progress. Kazuko is being instructed on the procedure to post items to DUCSNEWS, WWW and/or a new SLD Calendar conference.
2. Cheaper alternatives for teleconferencing using workstations and the internet for audio and video conferences are being investigated.

   Discussion

   The MBONE system is now in fairly common use for meetings ranging from person-to-person, to full conference broadcast (such as the recent Computing in High Energy Physics). Several groups (including SLAC) are investigating the MBONE system.

General Communication

1. Documentation, including programming examples, should be updated. Outmoded examples and documents should be removed from circulation (e.g. files removed from public SLD disks).

   Discussion

   This cleanup has been underway for a couple of months. Several help additions have been made to the SLD WWW pages.
2. A formal problem tracking system, GNATS, has recently been instituted.

   Discussion

   This system should ensure that once a collaborator has reported a problem it will not fall through the cracks.
3. SLD "Paper Reading" should be scheduled at least one week in advance and should occur in rooms equipped for teleconference.

   Discussion

   These readings are already quite well advertised and they follow the guidelines laid out in the "Publications" document approved by the SLD Council.

Section III: Recommendations for Non Resident Collaborators

1. Attendance at SLD monthly meetings is an important means to keep in touch with the activities of the collaboration. A visible presence also demonstrates a commitment to the experiment and makes it easier for the resident experts to justify the amount of time and effort they devote to supporting non resident collaborators. If a trip to SLAC is not possible for each monthly meeting, attending via teleconference should be a high priority.
2. Graduate students/post docs. should be sent to SLAC for a substantial period to get started on analysis i.e. more than just for shifts and occasional SLD Weeks.
3. Groups with VMS systems should install DUCS and assign a knowledgeable person to monitor its use. [Contact Pieter Jacques at Rutgers: JACQUES@RUTHEP, (908) 445-4431]. Those without VMS systems should actively pursue either acquiring one or getting the best network access possible e.g. hounding local and/or network administrators to improve the connection to SLAC, or purchase of leased line etc. The task force is recommending that the collaboration spokesmen play an active role to support requests to funding agencies for these improvements.
4. Analysis talks at collaboration meetings should be a high priority goal.
5. Network connections often cannot provide the low latency necessary to make remote interactive logins an attractive way to work. Collaborators are encouraged to use the networks in a way which does not require sub- second response times, such as WWW and DUCS.
6. Off-site groups with leased lines are advised to maintain them (increased to 19.2 kbaud, if possible) until network access to SLAC improves. Although leased lines are expensive to maintain, a poll of SLD institutions indicates a general unhappiness with network access to SLAC. The cause of these problems is multi-faceted and a moving target. Typically, there are bottlenecks somewhere on one or more of the many "hops" between institutions and SLAC. These can only be addressed by institutions to their local networks and by informing interstate networks, such as ESNET, of problems. On occasion the problem appears to be within the SLAC system, this is also a concern of on-site users. If this seems to be the case, please let SCS know, they are willing to help if they know there is a problem.
7. Monitor the SLD Home Page on the World Wide Web frequently since it has become the primary source of information within SLD. SLAC also intends to use WWW heavily to address some of the issues of the move from centralized computing (VM) to distributed systems (unix, pcs, etc.).
8. It is important for the people at SLAC, who are asked to do much of the service work, to see that their efforts are contributing to a stronger physics program for SLD. With this in mind, it is particularly important for non resident collaborators to make a substantial effort to give frequent updates of their work. For example, they should regularly attempt to present their work at the physics working group meetings and to make the effort to schedule teleconference meetings.
9. Offer to serve as experts to help other remote collaborators e.g. setting up DUCS (as Rutgers has done), setting up the SGI, etc.
10. Check the "task lists" of the analysis working groups. Although this is no substitute for actively participating in a group it may be a good way to identify topics which may interest you and which you feel you can pursue somewhat independently of the SLAC based group.
11. Volunteer to address some of the items in the list of outstanding offline tasks (the "Offline Job Jar") e.g. DUCSNEWS on the Alpha, "clean-up" of the documentation, etc.
12. Volunteering for the "Offline Shifts" is another good way to keep in close contact with the experiment, perform an important task which maintains data quality, and demonstrate a willingness to contribute to the general infrastructure of SLD analysis.
13. Remember to report problems you have. It is impossible for the SLAC people to anticipate everything that could go wrong or to make all documentation perfectly clear. They need feedback. For things that do not need immediate attention (IDA bugs for example) the GNATS problem tracking system should be used. For faster attention, for smaller problems, consulting the list of volunteer experts (which we hope to establish soon) is the better approach. Posting questions, and their subsequent solution, to the SLD conferences (or their replacements) will help to educate all of us too.

TO:      SLD Council Representatives
SUBJECT: Questionnaire related to SLD offsite analysis efforts
FROM:    SLD Task Force on Improving the Non-Resident Collaboration Environment.
 
REQUESTED REPLY DATE:   Thursday, June 9th 1994
 
 
In an effort to improve the effectiveness of SLD collaborators wishing to be
involved in analysis we have prepared the following questionnaire. Your
answers provide very important input which will help us to make best use of
our limited resources (remember that this includes both hardware AND
peopleware). As the representative to the SLD council we are relying on you
to solicit as much information as possible from your colleagues and to return
this form to us in time for it to be useful in the upcoming run. You are
encouraged to add any other comments you think will help us at the bottom of
the form.
 
Please complete this questionnaire and return it to BOBW@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU by
Thursday, June 9th 1994. Thanks.
 
 
1.  PERSONNEL
 
    How many of each of the following people (not resident at SLAC) do you
    have ACTIVELY involved in SLD analysis:
 
    grad. students  9
    post docs      3.5
    faculty         7_
 
    How many of each of the following people (not resident at SLAC) do
    estimate you would have actively involved in SLD analysis if it were
    easier to do so:
 
    grad. students 15.8
    post docs       9.5
    faculty        11
 
 
2.  COMPUTING RESOURCES
    Home institution computing resources available for SLD activity (list
    even if not currently in use):
 
    Operating system(s):     a. VMS______ , b. UNIX______ , c. Some IBM _
    Approx. MFLOPS:          a. 250 - 300 , b. 100 - 200_ , c. and SGI __
    Fraction for SLD use:    a. _________ , b. __________ , c. __________
    Disk space (Gbytes):     a.  35 _____ , b.  12 ______ , c. __________
    Tape drives (type):      a. 13 8-mm__ , b. 2 4-mm ___ , c. __________
    System Manager (Y/N):    a. < 2/3 yes , b. __________ , c. __________
 
    Do you have software expertise which could be a resource to the
    collaboration (e.g.  a system manager willing to help other groups
    install new software)? ___
    At what level?         _____ Little excess capacity, most none
 
 
3.  REMOTE MEETINGS
 
    Do you have a televideo system? 3Y 6N
         System:        _________________________________________
         Accessibility: ___________________(good, limited, none)
    Do you think televideo would be an effective tool  for SLD? most No
 
    Do you know what MBONE is?    4Y 4N
    (You may want to ignore the next few questions if you answered NO)
    Do you have conveniently available MBONE capable workstations (SUN, SGI,
    HP)?   _ 2Y ________________________________ (# available and type)
    Are they equipped with a video camera?   NO
    Have you used MBONE?                    DEMO
    Do you think it would be an effective tool for SLD? UNSURE
 
    Do you have audio-only phone conferencing facility? 5N 4 Y
    Do you think it would be an effective tool for SLD? 4Y 2N
    Have you tried a conference call using just a speaker-phone? 7Y 2N
    Do you think it would be an effective tool for SLD? 4Y 2N
 
    Which meetings would you be most likely to attend remotely?
    Monthly SLD, Physics Working Groups, CRID, 8:30 mtgs      ___
 
 
4.  OTHER COMMUNICATION
 
    DUCS
 
    Do you use DUCS regularly?  2Y 7N
    Do you find DUCS reliable?  2N 1Y 3?
    Do you think that DUCS is sufficient to allow offsite analysis?2N 1Y
                                                                   1?
    World Wide Web (WWW)
 
    Do you use WWW regularly?  6Y 2N
    Do you know that SLD has an extensive WWW page?  9Y
    {Look at http://slacvx.slac.stanford.edu/SLDWWW/000000/sld.html}
    Do you find the WWW useful? 9Y  .  Do you find SLDŐs WWW page useful? 7Y 1N
    Do you think that WWW is a good way for SLD to communicate? 7Y 2N
    {Please try the SLD Home Page first!}
 
 
5.  SLAC COMPUTING ACCESS
 
    Which SLAC computers do you use most (SLACVM, SLACVX, ALPHAs, UNIX)?
                       6 SLACVX, 6 SLACVM, 1 ALPHA _____________
    Are you satisfied with the computing available to you?     3N 4Y 2?
    Are you satisfied with your network access to SLAC computers?3N 4Y
    Do you maintain a leased line to SLAC? 3Y 4N What speed? 9600
    Do you use SLAC computers mostly for analysis or communications purposes?
    (e.g. for e-mail, SLDnews etc. or running analysis jobs, IDA etc.)
    ____________________  ALL OF THE ABOVE   ___________________
 
 
6.  DATA ACCESS
 
    For effective analysis at your home institution how important would it be
    to have the following datasets transmitted to YOUR SITE (i.e. the dataset
    available to you on local disks or tapes)?
    {See the SLD Primer on WWW
     http://slacvx.slac.stanford.edu/SLDWWW/000000/sldprimer.html
     for a complete description of the datasets and current ways to access them}
 
    [ Scale: 1-crucial, 2-important, 3-nice, 4-not needed, 5-waste of time
             and resources ]
 
    ACQ/RAW         4.0
    PASS1           3.5
    PASS2           3.1
    MonteCarlo      2.2
    miniDST         2.3
    microDST        2.0
 
 
    Do you have 8mm tape drives available at your home location for your use
    for data transfer? 8Y 1N
 
    Do you have 4mm or other tape drives available for your use for data
    transfer? 2Y 5N
 
    Would you be willing to purchase an appropriate system if other issues
     related to offsite analysis were addressed? 5Y 2N ALL MENTIONED
                                                 $$ PROBLEMS
 
7.  GENERAL
 
    What two things (that might be feasibly changed) can we change that you
    think would increase your productivity and effectiveness on SLD?
 
    1._____________________________________________________________________
 
    2._____________________________________________________________________
 
 
8.  COMMENTS
 
    Please add any other comments you would care to make: